Jump to content
Science Forums

The Problem Of Right And Wrong


Recommended Posts

Right and wrong are not decided by societies in a vacuum, it may seem that way to us since the rules were set before we were born but if enough people decide a rule is wrong it can be changed in our society. This is true in any society but it is somewhat easier in some than others...

Actually 'right' and 'wrong' are not decided at all, and certainly not by whole societies. But all of our moral pretentions do develop in the vacuum of space. What are these "rules" you write of; the predetermined elements of natural evolution?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Right and wrong are defined socially because they're memes used by a society in order to further the existence of that society.  Those societies with better memes outlast the ones with worse memes, or

The ratification/approval of a nations constitution by the nations people, via majority yes votes at referendum's, binds the people to the laws created by duly elected federal and state governments as

You have stated many times that evolution is random, it is not, it is deterministic via natural selection, gene pools are plastic to the environment, they do not change by random chance or by accident

Society judges what's right and wrong based on what society things is right and wrong.

Society doesn't judge anything at all, nor can a society think.

 

Once you recognize that morality is an evolving standard in the same sense that biology is an evolving standard then you can recognize that "don't murder" is as universal a value as "have a circulatory system".  There's no more objective reason for having "don't murder" as a value than there is an objective reason for life to have a circulatory system.  But that doesn't mean that there aren't benefits to having it, or detriments to not having it, or that having it doesn't make it more likely for that society/species to continue its own existence.

Why is no one discussing the actual topic of the post? I am NOT suggesting that there is no benefit (social or individual) to moral belief. I am taking issue with specific terminology as it relates to our ability to have rational discussions concerning morality (which, honestly, is seeming to me to be damn near impossible for most people).

Link to post
Share on other sites

So right and wrong are, in actuality, as I mentioned earlier: "more akin to 'beneficial' and 'unbeneficial'", or useful and useless, with the added undertone of morality, containing little substance on a small scale but greater substance on a large scale with regards to continued existence.

Are you suggesting that irrational and confusing terminology is essential to the continuity of the species? I am not going to disagree, as I suspect that most people are not even capable of examining morality rationally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that irrational and confusing terminology is essential to the continuity of the species? I am not going to disagree, as I suspect that most people are not even capable of examining morality rationally.

 

To some extent, I would have to say that is the case. I see the implications of "right" and "wrong" as having a greater impact than the terms themselves. Even the definitions of right, wrong and morality (according to the oxford dictionary) all point to each other without giving a solid definition, making them, in my opinion, inapplicable in rational discourse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if a mind can conceive a notion and then a positive conclusion about it, what word could one then use to describe that? whatever the word it would end up the same as "good" and "right".

 

how can justice be defined without first having concepts like right/wrong and the words that label those subjective concepts?

 

 

there is nothing wrong with killing ourselves, how can there be? but for those that simply think it is wrong then it is.....one reason is..... and i bring this up not becasue it's well thought out but because i think it's an interesting thought...... they(everyone) are a constuct of the universe and so when any of us speak we speak from that authority. if i can conceive it it's only because the universe allows it and since i am a mere "tool" if you will, of the universe then my thoughts orginate from the universe and although my thoughts appear to you as subjective, they are actually just a selection from objective choices presented by the universe.

and thus i am fully right to think i am "right".

 

if X in fact eqates to Y. that is an objective statement.

if the universe says there is nothing right or wrong about suicide but merely presents the choice "to be =X or not to be=Y" then they are equal to each other in that regard. they both have a super postion where both are both right and wrong. the universe is saying to the thing that could engage such a choice, that whether it is right or wrong is up to another part of the universe, that very thing that contemplated it to begin with.

Edited by layman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually 'right' and 'wrong' are not decided at all, and certainly not by whole societies. But all of our moral pretentions do develop in the vacuum of space. What are these "rules" you write of; the predetermined elements of natural evolution?

 

 

All social animals have evolved behaviors that are helpful to the group, we label those behaviors morals, they vary among both individuals to some extent and among populations as you would expect in anything that is an evolved trait... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the implications of "right" and "wrong" as having a greater impact than the terms themselves. Even the definitions of right, wrong and morality (according to the oxford dictionary) all point to each other without giving a solid definition, making them, in my opinion, inapplicable in rational discourse.

I share that opinion.

Edited by motherengine
Link to post
Share on other sites

if a mind can conceive a notion and then a positive conclusion about it, what word could one then use to describe that? whatever the word it would end up the same as "good" and "right".

 

how can justice be defined without first having concepts like right/wrong and the words that label those subjective concepts?

  

if X in fact eqates to Y. that is an objective statement.

if the universe says there is nothing right or wrong about suicide but merely presents the choice "to be =X or not to be=Y" then they are equal to each other in that regard. they both have a super postion where both are both right and wrong. the universe is saying to the thing that could engage such a choice, that whether it is right or wrong is up to another part of the universe, that very thing that contemplated it to begin with.

1- Positive or (socially/individually) beneficial work for me.

 

2- Should justice be defined? I don't happen to believe in justice (one way or any other).

 

3- Are you suggesting that all moral views can be correct to the point of moral absurdity? That is, a man can be correct in his assertion that something is wrong even as a woman can be correct in her assertion that said thing is right? Can rape, murder and molestation be both 'right' and 'wrong'?

 

“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually 'right' and 'wrong' are not decided at all, and certainly not by whole societies. But all of our moral pretentions do develop in the vacuum of space. What are these "rules" you write of; the predetermined elements of natural evolution?

 

You lack knowledge of what evolution is or how it works, I suggest further study on the concept.. 

 

Like what? Hypothetically he is locked in the back of a police cruiser. And why should he do anything else? Because you feel or think that he should?

 

 

One you are in the back of a police cruiser your options are limited but once back out into society there are many avenues to get laws changed if you can convince enough people they are unfair...    

Link to post
Share on other sites

1- Positive or (socially/individually) beneficial work for me.

 

then that is the same as "good" right? the opposite of that is "bad".

 

2- Should justice be defined? I don't happen to believe in justice (one way or any other).

 

but in point 3 you seem to have a sense of right and wrong and therefore justice.

 

3- Are you suggesting that all moral views can be correct to the point of moral absurdity? That is, a man can be correct in his assertion that something is wrong even as a woman can be correct in her assertion that said thing is right? Can rape, murder and molestation be both 'right' and 'wrong'?

 

untimately yes, if you disagree are you not automatically defining justice? how can someone believe in absurdity but not justice?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

then that is the same as "good" right? the opposite of that is "bad".

Only if you share my choice of definition.

 

but in point 3 you seem to have a sense of right and wrong and therefore justice.

I have a sense of what other people perceive as “right and wrong” and "just".

 

untimately yes, if you disagree are you not automatically defining justice? how can someone believe in absurdity but not justice?

Could absurdity be defined as the state of feeling just when there is no such thing as justice? I think so. Edited by motherengine
Link to post
Share on other sites

You lack knowledge of what evolution is or how it works, I suggest further study on the concept..

Where EXACTLY do I display a lack of knowledge concerning the process of evolution?

 

One you are in the back of a police cruiser your options are limited but once back out into society there are many avenues to get laws changed if you can convince enough people they are unfair...

Come on man; what is your game? Do you disagree with my issues with the terminology “right and wrong”, or are you just being contrarian for the hell of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore, I would consider right when the superego decides, and wrong when the ID decides, in opposition of the superego. So therefore, we cannot consider wright or wrong in the perspective of ours, or others superegos, but in the perspective of the person superego. When judging one's actions however, to be either right or wrong, we must confer with our with our own superego, for in the end, ours is the only one that really matters to us.

You speak as though Freud's concepts were undisputed truth as opposed to a very personal symbolic representation of certain psychic phenomenon (I don't necessarily dislike the theory of id, ego and super ego but, like much of psychology, it is philosophically malleable). I have definite separation from what you are referring to as a "superego" when it comes to intellectualism. I perceive no evidence of any absolute righteousness and so I would say that such a thing develops from domestication rather than directly from being.

Edited by motherengine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if you share my choice of definition.

 

I have a sense of what other people perceive as “right and wrong” and "just".

 

Could absurdity be defined as the state of feeling just when there is no such thing as justice? I think so.

 

are you not making value judgements about everything you mentioned? wouldn't you be weighing one thing against another in order to understand and draw some sort of conclusion about your feeling or sense? weighing things is exercising judgement. that is justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where EXACTLY do I display a lack of knowledge concerning the process of evolution?

 

 

Come on man; what is your game? Do you disagree with my issues with the terminology “right and wrong”, or are you just being contrarian for the hell of it?

 

 

You have stated many times that evolution is random, it is not, it is deterministic via natural selection, gene pools are plastic to the environment, they do not change by random chance or by accident... 

 

Society decides what is right and what is wrong, in any case right and wrong are subjective not objective and are evolved behaviors.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

You have stated many times that evolution is random, it is not

Quote me referring to evolution a random process. I use the term accidental to mean NOT ON PURPOSE, i.e., absent a conscious intention involved. Evolution is theorized to be a process involving both selection and mutation.

 

Society decides what is right and what is wrong, in any case right and wrong are subjective not objective and are evolved behaviors..

"right and wrong" are not behaviors; "right and wrong" is a concept related to behavior. And I happen to believe that all behavior is subjective. The concepts...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...